zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Combination of Articles of the Same Name
Votes Support yes Heroofhyrule 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) yay, it's not so annoying to look up if it's in one place. ZeldaFanatic98 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) yes, i agree with HoT, it looks better like it is on zeldawiki. as long as its differences are listed, it looks better and more concise the way zeldawiki has it. DarkBeastGanon 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I agree that we should combine some of these articles. I don't know what some of you are on that are saying it would make it "messy." Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. And Mr. Auronkaizer, those of us that are new DO care about ZP just as much as you do, so I'll thank you to shut your mouth about insulting some of us. Zeldarocks1989 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure that I support combining ALL of the articles of the same name (Fado for instance, that can be 3 different people) but I could see supporting combining the recurring places we see throughout the series like Hyrule Castle Town, the Temple of Time and temples that share the same name and basic purpose. There's no need to have a bunch of articles for those kinds of things. For people that share the same name yet are different people, those do need to be separate. So I don't support ALL of them being combined, but I do think the recurring places like that would be better if they were in one article. And I don't think it'd be that hard either as some are saying, that's more fabricated than true. LegendofZelda92 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, after reading some of the comments on here, I can understand both sides. I do think it's a little redundant to have several different articles for things we see over and over again like others have said. Articles like that that don't have a lot of information in them don't really merit an entire article to them. I do think it's possible to combine some of them in a way that's neat, like what some of the other zelda wiki's pages are like. I'd have to disagree Auronkaizer about what their pages look like, they do look nice in most places, and even if I didn't think they looked that great I wouldn't criticize them so heavily as you do because the same could be said for some of the pages here. I don't support combining absolutely all pages for things of the same name as a few others have said, because some by necessity do need to remain separate. However places and things that reappear often in several games could afford to be combined so it's not so what's the term..."all over the place" I guess. Golden Power 03:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC) if this is just for common everyday stuff we see all the time in several games, then yeah. it's kinda stupid for example to have different articles for death mountain when it appears in almost every game. i've seen other wikis too and they combine things like that. i also agree some of these said articles are really short and would be better served being condensed into one article for appearance's sake. Midnalover89 04:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comments